Christopher D. KARADJOV California State University, Long Beach Whose language? Exploring the attitudes of Bulgaria’s media elite toward Macedonia’s linguistic self-identification any nations have their obsessions, myths and long-term aspirations. MBulgaria’s dream is called Macedonia. So strong has been this rev- erie, it pulled Bulgaria into several military conflicts over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. Bulgaria has long considered Macedonia to be a part of its land, lan- guage and population, but it gained little in open warfare. It never fulfilled in its entirety the claim to Macedonia’s land. Macedonia’s language, popu- lation and identity were never definitively ascertained as Bulgarian. Dip- lomatic maneuvers did not bring a satisfactory solution, either. Yet the consequences of this yearning shaped Bulgaria’s history in many ways and left an imprint on the psyche of more than one generation. The very name Macedonia has become synonymous with unfulfilled promise1 and it would be a rarity to find a Bulgarian who remains indifferent as the sub- ject is brought up2. The following study investigates one aspect of the attitudes toward Macedonia among decision-makers in Bulgaria’s contemporary journal- ism – the ‘elite’media professionals who by and large share the beliefs and collective memories of their compatriots. The study, which is a part of a larger journalism research project completed between 2001 and 2007, probes for journalists’ attitudes toward Macedonia and tests in a new set- ting an established model of mass communication, the third-person effect. 1 Istorija na Bulgaria: Uchebnik za kandidat-studenti i zrelostnici [A history of Bulgaria: A textbook for candidate-students and high-school graduates], ed. by V. Gy- uzelev, Marin Drinov Academic Publishers, Sofia 2000. 2 R. J. Crampton, Bulgaria, 1878–1918: A history, Columbia University Press, New York 1983; R. J. Crampton, A short history of modern Bulgaria, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 1987; R. J. Crampton, A concise history of Bulga- ria, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 1997. 112 Christopher D. Karadjov SP 1 ’10 The author’s overarching research interest was to explore elite journalists’ perceptual biases and predispositions, and thus attempt to predict how any partiality among media decision makers may affect the overall media tenor in a potentially volatile part of the world. The purpose of this study, on the other hand, was not to ascertain or refute the veracity of certain interpreta- tions of political history of the Balkans. Those are better left to historians. Bulgaria’s aspirations toward Macedonia When Petar Stoyanov, Bulgaria’s then president, said in 1996 that “Macedonia is the most romantic part of Bulgaria’s history,”3 he was well understood by his compatriots. The view of Macedonia as a historically Bulgarian province torn away from the motherland by scheming neigh- bors and Great Powers is so common that it does not need any further clar- ification on the streets of Sofia, Plovdiv or Varna. Stoyanov’s words captured precisely a popular nostalgic feeling. Macedonian media con- demned them as yet another manifestation of “Bulgaria’s revisionism.”4 Since mid 19th century, Bulgaria had been one of the several na- tion-states – basically, all of Macedonia’s neighbors sans Albania5 – who claimed at least some of the territory and population of Macedonia as rightfully theirs. Stavrianos wrote that Bulgaria was the first nation to as- sert its rights over the Macedonian territory and population on ethnic and religious grounds, even before Bulgarians regained their statehood in 1878 after five centuries of subjugation by the Ottoman Empire6. Bulgarian Principality briefly comprised most of Macedonian lands be- tween the San-Stefano Peace Treaty of March 3, 1878, which ended the 1877–1878 Russo-Turkish War, and July 13, 1878, when the Berlin Treaty marked the birth of the modern Bulgarian state, albeit in an abridged format7. 3 BTA, “Daily bulletin in English”, November 21, 1996. 4 Nova Macedonia, “Editorial” 1996, p. 7. 5 It is perhaps a twist of historical irony that Macedonia’s governments in the 1990s have been quite ambiguous in their policies toward the large Albanian minority, which encompasses about 25% of the population. In 2001, clashes between Macedo- nians and Albanians put the country on the brink of a full-fledged civil war. 6 L. S. Stavrianos, The Balkans since 1453, New York University Press, New York 2000. 7 Bulgaria’s official state holiday is still March 3, and not July 13, reflecting the popular attitudes toward these two events. R. J. Crampton, op. cit. SP 1 ’10 Whose language? Exploring the attitudes of Bulgaria’s... 113 For generations of Bulgarians thereafter, these five and a half months have been perceived as a vicious slide from triumph to disaster, which has never been fully amended. The Berlin Treaty stripped Bulgaria of some 60% of its territories accorded to the newly liberated country through the San-Stefano agreement. Crampton, among others, stressed that the loss of so-called San-Stefano Bulgaria, and above all of Macedonia, “burnt deeply into the Bulgarian national psyche.”8 Indeed, he concluded that most of Bul- garia’s great decisions – most of them resulting in great failures – over ex- ternal policy since 1878 have hinged on the issue of Macedonia. All told, in the 20th century, Bulgaria fought four wars, inspired by the national ideal of regaining Macedonia’s land and population, and restoring the desired San-Stefano boundaries. Numerous guerilla actions, political killings and unspeakable suffering of the civilian population resulted from the attempts to resolve the so-called Macedonian Question by force. After decades of struggle, Bulgaria ended up with only a relatively small part of the Macedonian territories it had claimed, but enduring scores of humilia- tions in the process9. As far as Bulgaria is concerned, military or any other radical action had not been on the agenda since the end of the Second World War10 and the Macedonian Question remained on the backburner of the Balkan diplo- macy as an issue for quite some time. It resurfaced in a new form with the end of the communist rule in Bulgaria in 1989–1990 and the turmoil in Yu- goslavia in the 1990s. The return of this once hotly contested issue proved it had never truly gone away in the first place, even though it has now morphed along with the new geopolitical realities11. Duncan Perry observed in a 1995 chapter on Bulgarian nationalism: “That Bulgaria still does not recognize Macedonian nationality is both backward looking and a measure of importance of history to Balkan people.”12 8 R. J. Crampton, A concise history..., op. cit., p. 240. 9 R. J. Crampton, A concise history..., op. cit. 10 That is, since the 1947 proposal of Bulgaria’s then leader Georgi Dimitrov to Marshal Tito for a Balkan federation of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, which would include Macedonia. 11 J. Pettifer, FYROM after Ochrid, Conflict Studies Research Centre, Royal Mili- tary Academy, Sandhurst 2002; The new Macedonian question, ed. by J. Pettifer, St. Martin’s Press, New York 1999; J. Phillips, Macedonia: Warlords and rebels in the Balkans, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT 2004. 12 D. M. Perry, Bulgarian nationalism: Permutations of the past, in: P. Latawski, Contemporary nationalism in East Central Europe, St. Martin’s Press, New York 1995, p. 62. 114 Christopher D. Karadjov SP 1 ’10 The language dispute Anderson, who posited that nations are “imagined communities,” de- scribed common language as the precondition to establishing national dis- tinctiveness13. In the absence of substantial religious differences between the majority of Balkan neighbors (Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs, Romanians, Macedonians are all nominally Eastern Orthodox), the language, as Todorova14 observed, developed into a principal source of national iden- tity in the Balkans. Bulgarians have long prided themselves as the land where the Cyrillic script was developed in the 9th century CE15. May 24 is celebrated widely as the Day of Slavic Writing, with Byzantine brothers Cyril and Methodius, and their immediate pupils having been canonized by the Orthodox Church16. By most accounts, May 24 is one of the best-loved annual holidays17 and Bulgarians traditionally are taught at school to cherish their own language18. For instance, a recent suggestion by a hapless expert to switch from writing in Cyrillic to using the Latin al- phabet (similarly to Croatia, which shares essentially the same language with Serbia, but with a different script) was met with a firestorm of pro- tests and popular indignation19. Bulgaria has never recognized the existence of a separate Macedonian language, instead considering it to be an artificial creation based on a dia- lect. Only in February 1999 did Bulgaria relinquish half-heartedly its stern denial to even consider an alternative proposition20. This argument span- ning most of the 1990s became known as the “language dispute,” and it 13 B. Anderson, Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, Verso, London 1983. 14 M. Todorova, Balkan identities: Nation and memory, Hurst & Company, Lon- don 2004. 15 R. J. Crampton, A short history..., op. cit. 16 Bulgaria’s major university in Sofia bears the name of St. Climent Ohridski, the most prominent trainee of Cyril and Methodius. 17 Not the least because it is coming close to the end of the traditional school year, which no doubt makes this time exciting for most students. 18 C. D. Karadjov, Unimagining a nation: Media framing of the language dispute between Bulgaria and Macedonia in the 1990s, Paper presented at the 18th Annual In- tercultural Communication Conference, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, March 2001. 19 S. Bozhilov, Za i protiv kirilitsata [For and against the Cyrillic script], “Nova te- levizija”, May 16, 2005.